Global carbon emissions continue to stabilize, US has 3% drop

Plunging coal use is key driver in keeping emissions flat as economies grow.

2016 was the third year in a row that global carbon emissions remained stable, even as the overall economy grew. Although 32.1 Gigatonnes of emissions is certainly not good news for future climates, there is some cause for optimism within the numbers, as some major economies saw their emissions drop. And controlling emissions didn't come at the expense of the world's finances, as preliminary estimates show that the global economy grew by over three percent.

The data comes courtesy of the International Energy Agency, which looked at overall trends and broke out the numbers for a few key countries. Overall, renewables were a big story for 2016, meeting half the growth in global demand. Half of that number comes from hydropower. The world saw the biggest growth in generation from nuclear power since 1993, with six different countries starting up new reactors.

China was one of those countries, starting up five new reactors to increase its nuclear capacity by 25 percent. Nuclear combined with renewables to handle two-thirds of the country's rising demand. China also shifted some of its fossil fuel use from coal to natural gas. The net result was a drop in emissions of about one percent, even as demand grew by over five percent (and the economy grew by nearly seven percent). Gas still represents a small fraction of China's energy economy, so there's the potential for further displacement of coal.

Enlarge/ After running in parallel, economic growth and carbon emissions have gone their separate ways recently.

In the US, the process of shifting from coal to natural gas is already well advanced. Coal use was down by 11 percent last year, the IEA estimates, allowing natural gas to displace it as the US' largest single source of energy. This, along with booming renewables, allowed the US to drop its carbon emissions by three percent in 2016. That takes emissions to levels not seen since 1992, even though the economy is now 80 percent larger than it was then.

In the EU, emissions were largely stable, even though coal use dropped by 10 percent. But the EU's numbers had their own big successes. The IEA cites the drop of coal use in the UK, which has been examined in more detail elsewhere. 2016 saw the UK's coal use cut in half, which is a more dramatic effect than had been seen during national mining strikes. This leaves coal use at about 10 percent of where it was for most of last century. Put differently, the UK hasn't used this little coal since the 1800s.

Several factors drove the change, including cheap natural gas and an £18-per-tonne price on carbon emissions. Renewables are also playing a role, as UK wind farms produced more electricity than coal plants last year. The net result was a drop in emissions of nearly six percent, reaching levels that hadn't been seen since the 1800s (excepting during two miners' strikes).

While China, the US, and the UK are all reasons for optimism, their progress was only sufficient to keep global emissions from rising. "These three years of flat emissions in a growing global economy signal an emerging trend, and that is certainly a cause for optimism, even if it is too soon to say that global emissions have definitely peaked," said Fatih Birol, the executive director of the IEA.

Meanwhile, if playing with emissions data is your thing, the US' Energy Information Administration has just posted the full numbers for 2015, the year prior, when emissions dropped by over two percent. While a bit behind the times, the report has detailed numbers on fuel use, emissions by different sectors like transportation and residential use, and the amount of energy produced by non-emitting sources.

Latest Ars Video >

The Greatest Leap, Episode 3: Triumph

In honor of the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Apollo Program, Ars Technica brings you an in depth look at the Apollo missions through the eyes of the participants.

The Greatest Leap, Episode 3: Triumph

The Greatest Leap, Episode 3: Triumph

In honor of the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Apollo Program, Ars Technica brings you an in depth look at the Apollo missions through the eyes of the participants.

175 Reader Comments

2016 was the third year in a row that global carbon emissions remained stable, even as the overall economy grew.

...Right on time! The new administration tumbles in to promote coal burning power plants, revoking new fuel efficiency standards for vehicles that barely got started, and slashing climate research and scientific research funding.

Despite this flying in the face of the skeptics saying we cannot have economic growth WHILE protecting the environment and curbing carbon emissions.

In other words, civilization is at the point of making a u-turn on carbon emissions. Thanks in part to efforts of a lot of people, including voters, scientists, customers, businesses, politicians, etc. Where do we go from here?

In other words, civilization is at the point of making a u-turn on carbon emissions. Thanks in part to efforts of a lot of people, including voters, scientists, customers, businesses, politicians, etc. Where do we go from here?

Right back where we came from. Thank you politicians, businesses, voters and customers.

In other words, civilization is at the point of making a u-turn on carbon emissions. Thanks in part to efforts of a lot of people, including voters, scientists, customers, businesses, politicians, etc. Where do we go from here?

Negative GHG emissions.

It's good that our GHG has stayed constant or dropped a little over the last 3 years. Or, we decided to take the foot off the accelerator pedal. Next up, we have to step on the brake pedal to stop from falling off the cliff.

In other words, civilization is at the point of making a u-turn on carbon emissions. Thanks in part to efforts of a lot of people, including voters, scientists, customers, businesses, politicians, etc. Where do we go from here?

Negative GHG emissions.

It's good that our GHG has stayed constant or dropped a little over the last 3 years. Or, we decided to take the foot off the accelerator pedal. Next up, we have to step on the brake pedal to stop from falling off the cliff.

Yep, the steps hopefully are:1. Change our power production and cars until we're emitting close to no GHGs.2. Overbuild green energy to the point where we have excess energy that we can use to recapture carbon we previously emitted in the atmosphere.3. Store the captured carbon somewhere (inject it back into empty oil wells?) and hopefully reverse the damage we've done.4. Hold a global "we saved the world" party, roll credits.

More and more I tend to think that the rank and file anti-climate types are stuck in a mindset from the 1970s, back in the days when renewables really weren't a competitive alternative, and things like battery storage or electric cars weren't even remotely viable. They seem convinced that you can't have the same nice things we do now, and that being climate or eco friendly means suffering by driving an underpowered boring car. It's as if we're stuck with coal and oil if we want a competitive economy, and that's the only way it will be, and those liberals just want to kill businesses with their eco-regulations because they hate capitalism.

They ignore things like Tesla, or the fact that supercars are increasingly gas-electric hybrids, likely because it cuts against their argument to think of McLaren, Porsche, or Ferrarri rather than a Toyota Prius. They ignore the fact that it's the very market forces of capitalism that are making coal unviable, not some insidious government bureaucrat.

This is really good news, but I am a bit worried about the fact that most is attributed to a change from coal to gas. That suggests that we are still about equally hooked on fossile fuels. When all coal power is converted to gas power, the emmisions might start rising again. Going from coal to gas is the easy part. Going from gas to renewables is the tough nut to crack

This should be happily noted, but we must remenber there is a LOT left to do.

Having said that, it's nice to have some good news for a change, doubly-so regarding the environment. However, and this is coming from someone who unabashedly wishes we would start shutting down all fossil-fuel plants in the west and replace them with nuclear and renewables... all I have to say is I hope and pray that the Chinese did not cut any corners or skimp in any way, shape, form or fashion on building their reactors.

I'll spare Ars readers the details of what will happen if a horrible nuclear incident unfolds in China because corners were cut. Oh boy, just as the low-brow ZOMG ATOMS!! was starting to subside again! Just what humanity needed!

"Meanwhile, if playing with emissions data is your thing, the US' Energy Information Administration has just posted the full numbers for 2015, the year prior, when emissions dropped by over two percent. While a bit behind the times, the report has detailed numbers on fuel use, emissions by different sectors like transportation and residential use, and the amount of energy produced by non-emitting sources."

Yep, the steps hopefully are:1. Change our power production and cars until we're emitting close to no GHGs.2. Overbuild green energy to the point where we have excess energy that we can use to recapture carbon we previously emitted in the atmosphere.3. Store the captured carbon somewhere (inject it back into empty oil wells?) and hopefully reverse the damage we've done.4. Hold a global "we saved the world" party, roll credits.

...It's as if we're stuck with coal and oil if we want a competitive economy, and that's the only way it will be, and those liberals just want to kill businesses with their eco-regulations because they hate capitalism.

They ignore things like Tesla, or the fact that supercars are increasingly gas-electric hybrids, likely because it cuts against their argument to think of McLaren, Porsche, or Ferrarri rather than a Toyota Prius. They ignore the fact that it's the very market forces of capitalism that are making coal unviable, not some insidious government bureaucrat.

I find it fascinating to watch the regressive types tie themselves in knots as they watch the Market God they believe in above all others increasingly turn towards those filthy renewables.

2016 was the third year in a row that global carbon emissions remained stable, even as the overall economy grew.

...Right on time! The new administration tumbles in to promote coal burning power plants, revoking new fuel efficiency standards for vehicles that barely got started, and slashing climate research and scientific research funding.

Despite this flying in the face of the skeptics saying we cannot have economic growth WHILE protecting the environment and curbing carbon emissions.

It also should (hopefully) put to rest the lame excuse "But what about China?!"

This is really good news, but I am a bit worried about the fact that most is attributed to a change from coal to gas. That suggests that we are still about equally hooked on fossile fuels. When all coal power is converted to gas power, the emmisions might start rising again. Going from coal to gas is the easy part. Going from gas to renewables is the tough nut to crack

This should be happily noted, but we must remenber there is a LOT left to do.

It will get to the point were renewables will just be cheaper than building a natural gas power plant. About competitive now, but it will get to the point that it will be cheaper to build.

There is a comeuppance coming to fossil fuel and utility companies (and auto companies, tax structures centered around fossil fuel tech, for that matter). Like with dumb phone companies being utterly destroyed by smart phone companies, cheap residential energy storage ($100/kWHr?) leaves those companies nowhere to go, but to try their hand at renewables, do something else altogether, or to fade.

When I can get 50 kWHr energy storage plus about 15 kW of rooftop solar to power the house and fill up the storage for use later at night, I won't need much electricity from the utility company at all. With EVs, very little need from oil companies.

If most houses start to become independent with solar+storage, the whole economic structure of how energy is provided has to be rewritten. The process is not going to be pretty, but it's going to happen. Too many convergent economic factors to stop it. The proliferation of EVs, energy storage, and solar panels is a virtuous cycle, one reinforces the other.

It will get to the point were renewables will just be cheaper than building a natural gas power plant. About competitive now, but it will get to the point that it will be cheaper to build.

There is a comeuppance coming to fossil fuel and utility companies (and auto companies, tax structures centered around fossil fuel tech, for that matter). Like with dumb phone companies being utterly destroyed by smart phone companies, cheap residential energy storage ($100/kWHr?) leaves those companies nowhere to go, but to try their hand at renewables, do something else altogether, or to fade.

Wind power is decently cheap right now. With Nuclear to help with the base load, we may survive to see concentrated solar / molten salt take off, at which point non-CO2 power generation would mostly be a solved problem.

2016 was the third year in a row that global carbon emissions remained stable, even as the overall economy grew.

...Right on time! The new administration tumbles in to promote coal burning power plants, revoking new fuel efficiency standards for vehicles that barely got started, and slashing climate research and scientific research funding.

Despite this flying in the face of the skeptics saying we cannot have economic growth WHILE protecting the environment and curbing carbon emissions.

Who says that? What I've seen is people saying that we can have economic growth while at the same time reducing GHG emissions - something we are, in fact doing, mainly because of the growth of use of natural gas for electric generation, and a little bit due to increased efficiency standards for vehicles, household appliances, consumer electronics, lighting, etc.

Natural gas can only take us so far, though. It will continue to contribute to emissions decreases for awhile, simply because nat gas produces .6X the carbon compared to coal, when burned, and combined-cycle natural gas plants have higher thermal-to-electric efficiency than most coal plants.

However, it's mathematically a certainty that eventually natural gas, by itself, will hit a point where you get no further reductions, once you have 100% displaced coal (or gotten as close as you can to that figure - I doubt we'll get rid of ALL coal burning any time soon). At that point, the only way to further reduce emissions is to burn less natural gas, which can be done a number of ways:

* higher efficiency standards, so that less energy needs to be consumed for the same economic benefit* displacing energy generation of natural gas with other sources (nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, etc)* Or, hopefully not this - a shrinking economy (it's among the possibilities, but is not a necessity)

This is really good news, but I am a bit worried about the fact that most is attributed to a change from coal to gas. That suggests that we are still about equally hooked on fossile fuels. When all coal power is converted to gas power, the emmisions might start rising again. Going from coal to gas is the easy part. Going from gas to renewables is the tough nut to crack

This should be happily noted, but we must remenber there is a LOT left to do.

It will get to the point were renewables will just be cheaper than building a natural gas power plant. About competitive now, but it will get to the point that it will be cheaper to build.

There is a comeuppance coming to fossil fuel and utility companies (and auto companies, tax structures centered around fossil fuel tech, for that matter). Like with dumb phone companies being utterly destroyed by smart phone companies, cheap residential energy storage ($100/kWHr?) leaves those companies nowhere to go, but to try their hand at renewables, do something else altogether, or to fade.

When I can get 50 kWHr energy storage plus about 15 kW of rooftop solar to power the house and fill up the storage for use later at night, I won't need much electricity from the utility company at all. With EVs, very little need from oil companies.

If most houses start to become independent with solar+storage, the whole economic structure of how energy is provided has to be rewritten. The process is not going to be pretty, but it's going to happen. Too many convergent economic factors to stop it. The proliferation of EVs, energy storage, and solar panels is a virtuous cycle, one reinforces the other.

The amount of storage most households can provide themselves is not likely to be enough to sustain them through multiple days of overcast skies - they will still sometimes need power from the grid to fill in those shortfalls. However, because people will be buying less power from the grid than they do now, dis-economies of scale will kick in - the less of something that is sold, the more expensive it generally is.

Meaning that the price of grid power will go up, meaning utility companies will still be in business making money, off fewer units sold at higher marginal prices. Some of that grid power will come from wind farms (most houses, apartment buildings, etc will not have their own wind turbines, though they might have solar panels). Maybe some might come from nuclear. Some will probably continue from natural gas.

Also consider that not all buildings can reasonably go to a solar power model (things like factories, hospitals, office buildings, police and fire stations, large university buildings, etc).

Heh. It's a bit easier to use less energy when the economy isn't actually growing at all.

Fortunately, the economy won't be growing much any time soon due to worldwide demographics, so hopefully we can ride the downhill slope while reducing CO2 emissions further.

Its easier to use less energy when economy is growing....

What? That isn't what you and the other deniers were saying not all that long ago. It was a standard denier tactic to claim that environmentalists were trying to destroy the economy by limiting CO2 emissions.

Heh. It's a bit easier to use less energy when the economy isn't actually growing at all.

The former Canadian Prime Minister tried to take credit for the drop in emissions that occurred in '08/'09. As Elizabeth May (Green leader) pointed out, the only way he could take credit for that was if he took credit for the global fiscal crisis that occurred then.